The Washington Times’ editorials of June 22 (“New nominee needed to lead Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” web) and July 18 (“NRC doesn’t need Jeff Baran, an energetic adversary of nuclear power,” web) argue against the renomination of Mr. Baran for commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The pieces hold that Mr. Baran is biased against the development of nuclear power — and they may be right. To some, regulation can look like a bias against the regulated.

The NRC has been a regulator — not a promoter — of nuclear energy since 1974, when the Atomic Energy Commission was dissolved and replaced with the NRC and what is now the Department of Energy.

Regulation of nuclear energy was assigned to the NRC, and promotion was assigned to the Energy Department.

Today, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has oversight responsibility for the NRC, seems to be unaware of this distinction, since its members continually pressure the NRC to expedite approval of advanced nuclear-power technologies.

We would all be safer if the NRC sticks to its regulatory role, as mandated by Congress, and leaves the promotion of nuclear energy to the Department of Energy. Mr. Baran works for the NRC, not the Energy Department.

SAM MIRANDA

Leesburg, Virginia

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide